BRAVO’s actions in JULIET and ALPHA territories were necessitated by the presence of Day of Revenge (DOR) terrorists in the areas. The country faced an imminent threat as its neighbors harbored and protected its most significant concern for democracy. It is prudent to note that while ALPHA and JULIET issued complaints concerning the treatment of their mariners, some of the vessels registered in these regions violated Resolution 1900, and mariners failed to comply with international law. BRAVO’S Joint Task Force (JTF) did not violate the Law of Armed Conflict under International Law during the four incidences summarized in the following sections
Search and Seizure of the maritime Vessel Dauntless. The JTF worked using precise intelligence, alerting it to the shipment of illegal arms to support DOR forces. This is an act of aggression by the JULIET-flagged vessel and necessitated Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO). Ships in the area are aware of the JTF’s mandate to search them for contraband, a factor the Dauntless’s crew did not comply with. Resolution 1900 exists for such situations and should have been implemented with minimal resistance and reduced casualties.
It is prudent to note the JTF’s commandos acted rashly when refusing to provide one of the injured Dauntless mariners with medication. The crew member suffered significant injuries during the enforcement of Resolution 1900, prompted by pre-emptively dealing with potential terrorists (Ratner, 2002). The JTF failed to follow the second principle enforced under the First Geneva Convention that prevents military operations from conducting unnecessary acts to cause suffering to military and non-militant combatants (Reisman, 2006). It is crucial to note the commandos left one of the mariners to die after getting injured during the commando’s boarding of the Dauntless. They discerned the mariner would suffer for their counterpart’s actions concerning the stabbing of a commando during boarding. This is an unnecessary act to induce harm to a non-militant combatant. The commandos withheld medicine on the pretext of revenge for their comrade while claiming the Dauntless mariner would not have survived the night despite not taking action to aid them in recovery.
The JTF posited a logical reason for boarding the Dauntless, citing the LoW’s rules of engagement. The vessel carried IEDs and commercial fertilizer used to make bombs. While the JTF could not confiscate the fertilizer going to ALPHA, it is prudent to note that IEDs were present at the vessel that harbored several DOR operatives. These individuals broke the rules of engagement by failing to identify they had weapons openly and acting as mariners to infiltrate the region’s defenses (Aldrich, 2000). ALPHA’s open protection of terrorists that seek to harm BRAVO provides the latter country with a reasonable excuse to conduct such search and seizures as they wield results consistent with its investigations. The Dauntless crew killed in the boarding process were DOR operatives pretending to be civilians, illustrating their willingness to break the rules of engagement in combat.
Finally, it is crucial to note that ALPHA’s citizens killed as thy tied themselves to DOR vehicles with the capability of launching military munitions are not civilians but enemy combatants. While this group may have operated as civilians in the past, they chose to become militant enemy combatants when they tied themselves to enemy vehicles. Evidence does not indicate these acts were prompted, illustrating their willingness to play a role in DOR’s operations. The vehicles posited an imminent threat to BRAVO’s safety, and it was prudent to deal with them before they caused harm to civilians. The JTF is not to blame for these individuals’ deaths as they chose to operate as part of the enemy’s army, making the LoW applicable in their cases (Aldrich, 2000). These individuals are similar to the non-militant civilians killed to prevent DOR soldiers from realizing the JTF was close when they launched a rescue mission to save 30 civilians kidnapped by the terrorist group.
References
Aldrich, G. H. (2000). The laws of war on land. American Journal of International Law, 94(1), 42–63.
Ratner, S. R. (2002). Jus ad bellum and jus in bello after September 11. American Journal of International Law, 96(4), 905–921.
Reisman, W. M. (2006). Holding the center of the Law of Armed Conflict. American Journal of International Law, 100(4), 852–860.